Obama vs McCain - What Will They Do To Your Tax Bill?

[Cleverboy]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.

But voters really want to know one thing: How would the presidential candidates' views trickle down to their tax bills? A report released Wednesday by a nonpartisan policy group in Washington, D.C., takes a big first step toward answering that question.

According to the Tax Policy Center's findings, the common assumptions most people make about the plans of McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Obama, the Democrats' pick, are not wildly off-base.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/?postversion=2008061113

CNNMoney does a nice handy table of what affect each candidates policy will have on your tax bill. The question is, does this sound fair to you? Make sure you read the whole article. This article really helps to cut through the rhetoric. What will killing the AMT do? What will allow Warren Buffet to be taxed at the same rate as his secretary? Here ya go.

~ CB

[miloblithe]

I'm a little disappointed that people making $227k-603k under Obama's plan won't be paying any more taxes. In the end, Obama's plan sounds troubling, McCains sounds terrible:

The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

[Cleverboy]

I'm a little disappointed that people making $227k-603k under Obama's plan won't be paying any more taxes. In the end, Obama's plan sounds troubling, McCains sounds terrible:You mean "won't be paying any ADDITIONAL taxes". I almost read that as implying that these people would become tax exempt. :) They ARE paying $12 more dollars...

Personally, I'm not looking to have people taxed willy-nilly, just cause they make more money. I'm also thinking these numbers don't take everything into account, but its a good general watermark. McCain cuts taxes across the board, but considering that people making more money are currently being taxed LESS than middle class and low income citizens... AND Obama gives these groups DEEPER tax cuts, I think that his plan doesn't begin to address fairness... which is kind of dumb.

~ CB

[mactastic]

I think we need to keep in mind that these are only their proposals; and that any tax policy finally enacted will likely be markedly different. These proposals only show the candidates philosophy on taxes, not the likely outcome of their goals.

For example, if this truly is a change election, and the Democrats control the HoR by 100+ seats, and the Senate with a fillibuster-proof majority, Obama may be emboldened to make deeper cuts to the middle class tax rate at the expense of the super-wealthy. Conversely, if the GOP does well this cycle, McCain may try to provide deeper cuts to the super-wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Or either one may be in a more compromising mood, should this election be as close as that last two; which could result in some combination of the two plans.

[Desertrat]

Obama' big negative is the idea of raising the capital gains tax rate. Half of all households--or a smidgin over--are involved in the stock market. Many from direct ownership; most from retirement plans of their own, or employer retirement plans, both private and public.

Cut the profits, reduce folks' retirement income, all across the board.

As well, many university monies are invested in the stock market, with the profits from various transactions supporting their programs.

It may be attractive as a punitive measure of "Tax the rich!" but that's just flatout a bunch of horse-puckey. The last time the CG rate was raised, income to the federal government declined from lessened stockmarket activity. Lotsa selling ahead of the increase in the rate, more holding-on, afterward.

'Rat

[zioxide]

The last 8 years prove that McBush's tax policy would be an epic ****ing failure.

[Badandy]

McCain cuts taxes across the board, but considering that people making more money are currently being taxed LESS than middle class and low income citizens...

What are you talking about?!

[CorvusCamenarum]

Call me cynical, but I have a feeling that no matter who wins in November, taxes for most of us will go up.

[Cleverboy]

What are you talking about?!
LOL. By percentage. Took a moment for me to figure out your gripe. Its rarely, if ever true by dollar amount. Not my intended meaning.

~ CB

[mactastic]

Obama' big negative is the idea of raising the capital gains tax rate. Half of all households--or a smidgin over--are involved in the stock market. Many from direct ownership; most from retirement plans of their own, or employer retirement plans, both private and public.

Cut the profits, reduce folks' retirement income, all across the board.

As well, many university monies are invested in the stock market, with the profits from various transactions supporting their programs.

It may be attractive as a punitive measure of "Tax the rich!" but that's just flatout a bunch of horse-puckey. The last time the CG rate was raised, income to the federal government declined from lessened stockmarket activity. Lotsa selling ahead of the increase in the rate, more holding-on, afterward.

'Rat
You know what's really horse-puckey? The idea that raising capital gains taxes will affect all these people you claim are "invested in the stock market". By which you mean 401ks, right? If such is your meaning, and there is no other basis for claiming that "half of all households... are involved in the stock market, then you are the one peddling road apples here. Income is placed into a 401k pre-tax and allowed to grow. But when it is withdrawn, it is not taxed at the capital gains tax rate. No, rather it is taxed at the income tax rate, which is significantly higher than the capital gains tax rate.

IOW, this notion that raising the capital gains tax rate will cut into ordinary American's retirement savings is nothing more than a standard right-wing scare tactic. I'm surprised someone as sharp as you has fallen for this nonsense.

[atszyman]

Obama' big negative is the idea of raising the capital gains tax rate. Half of all households--or a smidgin over--are involved in the stock market. Many from direct ownership; most from retirement plans of their own, or employer retirement plans, both private and public.

Cut the profits, reduce folks' retirement income, all across the board.

Mactastic addressed the fallacy of the first paragraph but what do you think will happen to folks' retirement income when Social Security undergoes a massive benefits cut? I'm willing to bet that more people would lose more retirement income on the latter than what the increase in Capital Gains tax would do to their retirement since that tax would only apply to investments that were made outside of their "retirement" accounts.

It may be attractive as a punitive measure of "Tax the rich!" but that's just flatout a bunch of horse-puckey. The last time the CG rate was raised, income to the federal government declined from lessened stockmarket activity. Lotsa selling ahead of the increase in the rate, more holding-on, afterward.

Holding on to stocks is always a bad thing? And if that's the big impact I'd be willing to bet that most of those you refer to as being in the stock market are not constantly trading stocks but are buying a few here and there for companies they like and aren't spending all of their time day trading and will see little effect of the capital gains increase on their tax bills due to low volumes and infrequent sales.

Call me cynical, but I have a feeling that no matter who wins in November, taxes for most of us will go up.

You think most of us are making over $227,000 a year? (at least according to the article that's the first group that sees their taxes go up, while the rest see a net decrease).

[CorvusCamenarum]

You think most of us are making over $227,000 a year? (at least according to the article that's the first group that sees their taxes go up, while the rest see a net decrease).

No, I just afford politicians the same level of trust I would lawyers and salespeople. That is to say, none.

[atszyman]

No, I just afford politicians the same level of trust I would lawyers and salespeople. That is to say, none.

Of course I don't necessarily mind paying more in taxes if it means I can feel as good about the future of the economy and this country as I did in 2000, before my taxes were cut. I felt much better off then than I do now even though I now pay the government less.

[Desertrat]

Okay, mac, I stand corrected on the 401k; I never went that route. But company retirement funds are invested in the stock market, commonly via mutual funds. And there are individuals who own stocks or invest in stocks separately from 401ks.

And it's not just stock. Land, rent houses, etc. All manner of capital items are bought, held and then sold.

Look: There are a lot of non-rich folks who don't particularly need some chunk of money at any particular time. When the taxes go up, they hold longer than they otherwise would have. "I don't really need the money, right now, so I'll just hold on." That means fewer transactions--which is what reduces federal tax income. And it's even more true for the rich/wealthy.

And it happened before, so I don't see why it wouldn't happen again. When the capital gains tax was reduced in the 1970s, an incredible amount of sales occurred and the tax income to the feds jumped tremendously. Ford? Early Carter? I don't remember the exact time, but I smiled at the reduction.

If you tie a higher capital gains tax to the reduction in the estate tax exemption, as has been proposed, it's a double hickey. Look at the inflated value of houses as an example. (An example: I know of a house in Santa Barbara that first sold for $100K. My acquaintance bought it for $300K. A couple of years back, it was on the tax rolls at a million. Even with the current decline, it's still somewhere around $700K. This sort of thing is common with large homes, businesses, farms and ranches--which is why the exemption was raised in the first place.) So some property has to be sold to cover the estate tax, and any profits on that sale are taxed as capital gains. I've gone through this fol-de-rol, myownself.

And just the concept of a death tax is horrible: You pay taxes on your income, invest some disposable income and accumulate for your kids' benefit and then the feds want to take even more from the already-taxed pile. Raw greed in action. Makes the worst corporation look benevolent. So, people not being stupid, many create tax-free trust funds and the government doesn't get anything at all. Others figure out some way to reduce their personal exposure, and that's not difficult--which can lead to them being actually worth a whole bunch while being eligible for Medicaid. Floridian retirees can give lessons in that. :D The net bottom line for the feds is less income...

Upper income folks didn't get that way by being stupid. When their billfolds are threatened, they figure out some self-defense methods. Always have, always will.

'Rat

[mactastic]

If the concept of taxing income multiple times is so abhorrent, why is there a sales tax that taxes my spending after I've already been taxed on the income?

Also, there's a fallacy in your inheritance tax logic in that you assume someone is getting double-taxed. Wrong. You get taxed once, and your kids get taxed once. That's not double taxation; it's taxing a transaction. To assert that it is double taxation is as ridiculous as an employee claiming that they shouldn't have to pay taxes on their income because the employer who gave it to them already paid taxes on it, and the people who bought or paid for the employer's goods/services already paid taxes on THAT money.

If the argument is that money can only be taxed once, we oughta tax it right as it comes out of the mint, and from then on declare it untaxable. Otherwise, you must support the idea that it's not the person being taxed, it's the transaction. Passing your money from you to your children upon your death is a transaction, nothing more, nothing less.

As I've said many times in this forum, I will happily support an exemption of sufficient size to allow the transfer of farms, houses, and things of that nature to family members or friends upon your death. But the Paris Hilton tax is what we're talking about here. You and I both know that the number of people who are forced to sell property to pay off the badnasty gubmint for their inheiritance tax is tiny. "Be prepared" isn't just some dumb slogan.

[Badandy]

LOL. By percentage. Took a moment for me to figure out your gripe. Its rarely, if ever true by dollar amount. Not my intended meaning.

~ CB

That actually wasn't the intended meaning. By percentage, wealthier Americans pay more than other groups. The progressive income tax actually does lead to a progressive take for the government in income taxation.

[solvs]

Call me cynical, but I have a feeling that no matter who wins in November, taxes for most of us will go up.
Unless you make over 6 figures, and even then in some cases, they won't really that much.

And just the concept of a death tax is horrible
McCain used to support the "death tax", actually just a few years ago he was quoting Theodore Roosevelt as emphasis for why it was needed. Another flip flop. But unless those estates are around about $2 million, they aren't taxed at that high of a rate. Sometimes, especially with businesses like some farms, they aren't at all. But it makes a good boogeyman about those higher taxes, while our deficits continue to rise.

[atszyman]

That actually wasn't the intended meaning. By percentage, wealthier Americans pay more than other groups. The progressive income tax actually does lead to a progressive take for the government in income taxation.

And other taxes like property and sales tend to take up a smaller percentage of the wealthier taxpayers money, which is why we have a progressive tax a the federal level to try to level out the overall tax burden.

Not all of the wealthy pay more as a percentage either Warren Buffet paid a lower percentage on his income than his secretary did (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece).

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

[mactastic]

That actually wasn't the intended meaning. By percentage, wealthier Americans pay more than other groups. The progressive income tax actually does lead to a progressive take for the government in income taxation.
But of course, talking about income taxation in a vacuum is meaningless. And we've been over this before.
And other taxes like property and sales tend to take up a smaller percentage of the wealthier taxpayers money, which is why we have a progressive tax a the federal level to try to level out the overall tax burden.

Not all of the wealthy pay more as a percentage either Warren Buffet paid a lower percentage on his income than his secretary did (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece).
Yeah, I've tried explaining this to him before. He's deaf to the issue. Like many conservatives, he likes to focus on the unfairness of the income tax while ignoring that when you include all other regressive taxes and fees, the overall tax burden is pretty flat.

Oh well... you can only explain things so many times before it becomes apparent that willful ignorance is in play.

[mactastic]

In any case, what I'm hearing from Obama doesn't lead me to believe that MY taxes will be raised.

For those of you who are afraid of higher taxes under an Obama administration, you must be making a pretty sweet chunk of change, or are living the "trustifarian" lifestyle.

[atszyman]

In any case, what I'm hearing from Obama doesn't lead me to believe that MY taxes will be raised.

For those of you who are afraid of higher taxes under an Obama administration, you must be making a pretty sweet chunk of change, or are living the "trustifarian" lifestyle.

To be honest I wish I made enough to complain about Obama's tax increase...

I do find his payroll tax hole (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyEHa5vNXXyk_a13jhW9zJeN7m8QD919AJU8B) a bit perplexing, why leave the hole at all?

[mactastic]

To be honest I wish I made enough to complain about Obama's tax increase...

I do find his payroll tax hole (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyEHa5vNXXyk_a13jhW9zJeN7m8QD919AJU8B) a bit perplexing, why leave the hole at all?
Because people making sub-$250k a year are not among the super-wealthy. If you leave that hole, you are only increasing taxes on people who make above that amount. $100k a year ain't what it used to be.

Around here, you need an income of about $120k per year to afford the cost of the median house. That's solidly middle-class territory, and Obama isn't interested in raising taxes on the middle class.

[nbs2]

Of course I don't necessarily mind paying more in taxes if it means I can feel as good about the future of the economy and this country as I did in 2000, before my taxes were cut. I felt much better off then than I do now even though I now pay the government less.

2009 is still in flux for me. Currently, I am on the border between the Obama and McCain plans. But, I expect that I will be shifting into the McCain camp by next year. However, this table doesn't make clear whether they are providing single or married numbers. I may benefit sharply until Obama.

BUT. I haven't had a solid income in my working life, and so my retirement savings are not where I would like them to be. Rather than flittering away any increase I see in salary, I would like to invest it towards retirement. With the low amounts that I can contribute to my IRA, I put myself at severe risk of being affected more sharply by Obama's CG hike.

[atszyman]

Because people making sub-$250k a year are not among the super-wealthy. If you leave that hole, you are only increasing taxes on people who make above that amount. $100k a year ain't what it used to be.

Around here, you need an income of about $120k per year to afford the cost of the median house. That's solidly middle-class territory, and Obama isn't interested in raising taxes on the middle class.

But he's not removing the tax on the first $90k. So the Lower incomes will pay a higher percentage in payroll taxes than the middle incomes and upper incomes.

I'd rather see the reverse of not taxing the first $90k and only those between $180k and up would see an increase...

Seems like an odd way to go about it with that hole and seems to continue to screw the poor while avoiding an increase on the middle class.

[mactastic]

2009 is still in flux for me. Currently, I am on the border between the Obama and McCain plans. But, I expect that I will be shifting into the McCain camp by next year. However, this table doesn't make clear whether they are providing single or married numbers. I may benefit sharply until Obama.

BUT. I haven't had a solid income in my working life, and so my retirement savings are not where I would like them to be. Rather than flittering away any increase I see in salary, I would like to invest it towards retirement. With the low amounts that I can contribute to my IRA, I put myself at severe risk of being affected more sharply by Obama's CG hike.
IIRC, IRAs are taxed at the income tax level when you withdraw from them, similar to a 401k. AFAIK, IRAs are not taxed as capital gains.

But he's not removing the tax on the first $90k. So the Lower incomes will pay a higher percentage in payroll taxes than the middle incomes and upper incomes.

I'd rather see the reverse of not taxing the first $90k and only those between $180k and up would see an increase...

Seems like an odd way to go about it with that hole and seems to continue to screw the poor while avoiding an increase on the middle class.
Well, if you don't tax anyone on the sub $90k the system won't work at all. Everyone should contribute to it anyway. However, I agree with Obama about the donut hole. Keep taxes on the middle class low.

[Cleverboy]

That actually wasn't the intended meaning. By percentage, wealthier Americans pay more than other groups. The progressive income tax actually does lead to a progressive take for the government in income taxation.Mm. I think the rest beat me to it. If you're asking me to take your statement and Buffet's statement, and determine which is "more" or "less" true... I'd probably go with Buffet.

His statement was:
Buffett told Clinton's supporters he makes $46 million a year in income, but is taxed only at 17.7%. Meanwhile, he claims, his secretary pays 30% in taxes, and the rates for others who work for him are as high as 39.7%. I found a blog that immediately questioned that premise, and even did so by going direct to the IRS website and doing a very simple calculation.

http://stevesees.blogspot.com/2007/07/warren-buffets-tax-knowledge-is.html

It went like this:
Sounds unjust, if true. But we don't know what tax system Buffett is looking at. It certainly isn't the one we use here in the U.S. We went to the IRS' Web site and used its tax calculator. We put in various incomes, from $50,000 to $350,000 a year — the latter being quite a bit for a secretary to make in Omaha.

Here's what we found: At $50,000, the IRS asks for 13.5% of your income. At $75,000, it's 17.3%. You can keep going all the way to about $350,000 before you're in spitting distance (28.4%) of what Buffett's secretary supposedly pays." Hm. So, is Buffet a liar? Sounds like it matches what you're saying, and has some authority and common sense behind it. Mm, thankfully we have the first anonymous commenter to that blog entry put things radically back into proper perspective and forces us to pay attention to the workings of a more complex world:
Fuzzy tax math? Did you include FICA in your calculation. Mr. Buffet pays FICA on only the first $100,000 (approx) he makes, his secretary probably pays on her entire salary.

Also his secretary "earns" her income -- you know, she works for it. Earned income in this country is taxed at a higher rate than "investment" income such as capital gains and dividends. I'll bet much of Mr Buffet's income is investment income. Did you get that far in your research, or simply stop at the IRS tax calculator (which, BTW, shows marginal tax rates)?

I believe Mr Buffet has a standing bet with any one on the Forbes 500 list that they pay a lower effective tax rate than their employees. As far as I know, no fat cats has taken him on his wager. Ouch. Sounds pretty clear cut there. "Steve", the guy writing the blog responded, but ignores investment income, because it rewards risk, discounts FICA because it gets paid back as social security, etc, etc. For me, the argument because less about the "result" of more or less taxes for what income groups, and more about taxation ideology. Which has NOTHING to do with the veracity of original statement and more to do with whether you agree with the concept of "fairness" as it is most commonly seen.

~ CB

[Badandy]

Bringing up the oft-used example of Warren Buffett and his secretary has absolutely no merit. We all know that exceptions occur in nearly everything. But, on the whole, the people who make 33% of the nation's income (which is something around 5% of the population) pay 39% of the income taxes. Whatever Warren Buffett stats you can come up with, do so, but if taken on the whole, the idea that the rich pay less of a percentage in taxes is completely fallacious. And actually, it's pretty insulting to those people who who pay tens of thousands of dollars to the government while other people are contributing a less percentage. If it wasn't enough that they're taxed at a higher percent, people now don't even give them the recognition they are, and, in some cases, even vilified. Despicable.


EDIT: I'm not arguing fairness here. I'm just arguing that people at least recognize that the rich pay not only the a huge, raw amount of taxes in this country, but a higher percentage of their income as well.

[hulugu]

Bringing up the oft-used example of Warren Buffett and his secretary has absolutely no merit. We all know that exceptions occur in nearly everything. But, on the whole, the people who make 33% of the nation's income (which is something around 5% of the population) pay 39% of the income taxes. Whatever Warren Buffett stats you can come up with, do so, but if taken on the whole, the idea that the rich pay less of a percentage in taxes is completely fallacious.....

Well, this assumes that Buffet is actually an exception. It's entirely possible for 5% of the population to pay 39% of the nation's income and only lose 17% of their income.
I'd really like to see some concrete information on this, most examples I've seen play games with the numbers by over/under estimating certain aspects to make their point. The Buffet example is interesting and certainly worth examination.

[Badandy]

Well, this assumes that Buffet is actually an exception. It's entirely possible for 5% of the population to pay 39% of the nation's income and only lose 17% of their income.
I'd really like to see some concrete information on this, most examples I've seen play games with the numbers by over/under estimating certain aspects to make their point. The Buffet example is interesting and certainly worth examination.

No no no. 5% of the population, which makes about 33% of the income, pay 39% of the income tax burden. The 33 to 39 figure is the important one.

[hulugu]

No no no. 5% of the population, which makes about 33% of the income, pay 39% of the income tax burden. The 33 to 39 figure is the important one.

Okay, maybe I'm just tired, but I don't see how this requires that Buffet's situation be an outlier.

We know that the income tax burden is not situated linearly with income.

Another example from this (http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm) website, according to the author's calculations, George Bush paid 26.86% of his 2000 income to federal income tax.

The rich clearly pay an incredible amount of wealth into the system, but in many situations, a reasonable clever (or at least smart enough to hire a good money manager) person can mitigate the amounts they pay to the IRS in ways that are simply unavailable to someone making minimum wage. This is a simple reality.

Again, I fall to the reasonable consideration that I'd rather pay 50% of $1,000,000 than 5% of $10,000.

[solvs]

On taxes, the differences couldn’t be more obvious (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/13/on-taxes-the-differences-couldnt-be-more-obvious/)
The irony is, McCain, after his last presidential election, thought Bush’s trickle-down, class-warfare-style tax plan was ridiculous. “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief,” McCain said in 2001.

Now, however, McCain is anxious to do precisely what he couldn’t in good conscience do before. Obama, meanwhile, is prepared to deliver for middle-class families and those at the lower end of the scale. The Washington-based Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama promise to cut taxes for the majority of Americans. But an Obama administration would redistribute income toward lower- and middle-class households, while a McCain White House would steer the bulk of the benefits to the wealthiest families, according to a nonpartisan analysis of the still-evolving tax plans of the presidential candidates.

Kevin Drum summarized the bottom line nicely: “If you’re really rich and think that George Bush’s tax cuts for the rich didn’t go nearly far enough, John McCain is your man.”
We've argued about this before. Some of us think if you have more money, you can afford to pay more. As noted, 50% of $1,000,000 is better than 5% of $10,000. Some of us think it's the responsibility of those of us who make more to pay more, especially as someone who can look back at barely making enough to get by. Some people see taxes as a punishment, the gov taking your hard earned money to spend it on things that you may or may not use, and may or may not like. I'm not saying I'm happy with everything my tax money goes towards, it is wasted by those on both sides, but I understand why it's needed, and look at the growing deficits by someone claiming to be a conservative, and someone who now sides with almost all of those policies, and wonder why anyone would want to support more of that all because they're worried they might have to pay more in taxes.

If you're worried about having to pay under Obama, you should be able to afford to pay more, since those are the only types of people who will be negatively affected by his (not great, but better than McCain's current) plans.

[themadchemist]

I hate the framing of this question so much. We shouldn't be deciding on a President based on what will happen to our individual tax bills; whatever happened to a bit of shared sacrifice and commitment to the country as a whole, instead of only our personal interests? It's easy and entertaining for media outlets to have little "tools" like this, but they divert the focus away from figuring out which candidate will have the most positive long-term effect on the country.

[PlaceofDis]

I hate the framing of this question so much. We shouldn't be deciding on a President based on what will happen to our individual tax bills; whatever happened to a bit of shared sacrifice and commitment to the country as a whole, instead of only our personal interests? It's easy and entertaining for media outlets to have little "tools" like this, but they divert the focus away from figuring out which candidate will have the most positive long-term effect on the country.

of course though, thats the whole point of the media. to sensationalize as much of the election as they can for more ratings. its pathetic.

[Desertrat]

themadchemist, we would not have to worry about "shared sacrifice" if we hadn't been begging the Congress to spend money like sailors on shore leave after six months sea duty.

Since my opinion is just as irrelevant as that of anybody else, I'll just say that progressive tax rate is nothing but class-envy.

[atszyman]

themadchemist, we would not have to worry about "shared sacrifice" if we hadn't been begging the Congress to spend money like sailors on shore leave after six months sea duty.

Since my opinion is just as irrelevant as that of anybody else, I'll just say that progressive tax rate is nothing but class-envy.

Then let's just put a flat rate on all forms income including investment, inheritance. But somehow I don't see that happening ever.

[blackfox]

To Badandy in particular (but posted in general):

I can see your gripe(s) - but to me in a capitalist society it has to do with percentages and disposable income (after taxes). While it may not be "fair" that the richest among us pay more percentage-wise, this allows a decent revenue stream to the Feds. whilst promoting a larger % of total taxpayers a useable amount of disposable income to dump into the economy.

I freely admit that I am no economic expert - but that seems like about the best deal for everyone, all things considered.

[mactastic]

Nobody seems interested in discussing Obama vs. McCain's tax plan. Instead all we seem to be getting is the same ridiculous comments as comes up every time we talk taxes: class envy, despicable. Much of which has been debunked, but is still spewed by some in the forum.

My taxes will be going down in an Obama administration, based on what I've seen. They will, at best, stay where they are with a McCain administration. From that perspective, the choice is clear.

[Desertrat]

mac, your definition of "ridiculous" is not definitive. :D

Anyhow, I've been hunting for analyses of the two men's plans on tax policy. It's hard to find any that aren't biased one way or the other. What do you know about this "Tax Foundation"?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/compare/

Just offhand, Obama sez he wants to reduce taxes for retirees. I didn't see where that applied to the taxes on Social Security income...

i've seen one chart of comparison of the change in taxes paid, for the various income groups. Lost it, though. I'd like to see it alongside a chart of the taxes paid by the various income groups.

[mactastic]

Your definition of class envy is hardly definitive either...

[hulugu]

Well, when I was looking around I ran into this (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db20080611_220050.htm) article.
Hardly definitive, but interesting.

Also, from the Tax Policy Center, a scoring (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/4/17/3644448.html) of McCain's tax policy.

[themadchemist]

themadchemist, we would not have to worry about "shared sacrifice" if we hadn't been begging the Congress to spend money like sailors on shore leave after six months sea duty.


Well, now that we're here, however we got here, the measure of patriotism and commitment to the country is not simply covering our bodies with flag pins. It's balling up and accepting the consequences of our country's actions together, instead of fighting to look out only for ourselves.


Since my opinion is just as irrelevant as that of anybody else, I'll just say that progressive tax rate is nothing but class-envy.

Yeah, that or ensuring that the folks at the bottom can still manage to eat at the expense of the fourth yacht for those at the top. I think it's a fair trade off.

[PlaceofDis]

to get a bit back on topic: i'd fare better under Obama's Policies than McCain's, as would the vast majority of people i know.

[atszyman]

Yeah, that or ensuring that the folks at the bottom can still manage to eat at the expense of the fourth yacht for those at the top. I think it's a fair trade off.

Especailly since not being able to eat can easily lead to violence and crime, while not getting a fourth yacht usually only leads to sulking.

[Desertrat]

Thanks, hulugu.

A few points: Okay, the Obama ideas would reduce the federal income tax on the lower end. From my viewpoint, yes that's good, but it doesn't speak to the whole deal about cost of living.

If you increase the cost of doing business--by ending loopholes and subsidies and by raising corporate taxes--you increase the prices of all products which people buy. You then have a horse race as to which is larger: The added presumably-disposable income or the cost of your groceries and gasoline.

The article said, "Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain's top economics advisor, argues that the study doesn't take into account which policies might prove better for jobs and the economy, or how companies or individuals might behave in reaction to changing tax rates."

It is historical fact that raising tax rates has often reduced business activity. We saw this with the windfall taxes imposed on oil companies in the 1970s.

Another aspect is this: "There's another highly questionable factor built into these calculations: Each campaign assumes it will get hundreds of millions in new revenues by closing tax loopholes, eliminating excessive spending on earmarks, and other maneuvers. To come up with its estimates, the Tax Policy Center takes those figures at face value, though many can't be verified or are unlikely to materialize. Spending, after all, is rarely cut—or loopholes as easily closed—as much as pledged during a campaign. Instead, says Burman, the analysis provides a snapshot of what would be feasible "if they could become President without a Congress, and without the need to run for reelection."

What's said on the campaign trail is addressed by, "...the Tax Policy Center takes those figures at face value, though many can't be verified or are unlikely to materialize."

I stand by my earlier comment about raising capital gains taxes reducing tax income to the feds. That's based on history, not on my opinion. And, reducing the capital gains tax rate increased Fed revenue--again, history.

Now, I don't expect McCain's ideas to deliver any little bundle of joy to my billfold. My seat of the pants notion from comparison is that his ideas are less harmful to the economy as a whole. Obama's, overall, are harmful. He's trying to buy votes from a certain sector of income groups. And the idea of taking from the rich to give to the poor is Robbing Hood.

'Rat

[mactastic]

If you increase the cost of doing business--by ending loopholes and subsidies and by raising corporate taxes--you increase the prices of all products which people buy. You then have a horse race as to which is larger: The added presumably-disposable income or the cost of your groceries and gasoline.
Well let's see... we've been doing the whole "tax cuts for the rich" thing for darn near 8 years now, and we're facing exactly the prospects you say would happen under an Obama plan. Gas prices are pretty high these days, in case you haven't noticed. How's that horse race working out for the middle class these days? And exactly how is McSame's plan to keep doing the same thing we're doing now going to magically make things better?

Now, I don't expect McCain's ideas to deliver any little bundle of joy to my billfold. My seat of the pants notion from comparison is that his ideas are less harmful to the economy as a whole. Obama's, overall, are harmful. He's trying to buy votes from a certain sector of income groups. And the idea of taking from the rich to give to the poor is Robbing Hood.

'Rat
You don't seem to have any problem with taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Also, I note that while you accuse Obama of trying to buy the votes of the middle and lower class, you don't accuse McCain of trying to buy the votes of "a certain sector of income groups" with his plan. Why is that? I can hazard a guess...

[hulugu]

....If you increase the cost of doing business--by ending loopholes and subsidies and by raising corporate taxes--you increase the prices of all products which people buy. You then have a horse race as to which is larger: The added presumably-disposable income or the cost of your groceries and gasoline....

Now, I don't expect McCain's ideas to deliver any little bundle of joy to my billfold. My seat of the pants notion from comparison is that his ideas are less harmful to the economy as a whole. Obama's, overall, are harmful. He's trying to buy votes from a certain sector of income groups. And the idea of taking from the rich to give to the poor is Robbing Hood.

'Rat

Well, generally, I think both plans are problematic. Obama's plan may be too restrictive on corporations, however let's be clear that McCain's plan creates a massive shortfall in the government's coffers, to the tune of 2.7 trillion dollars between 2009 and 2018. That money will have to made up somewhere, or we are just borrowing money from tomorrow for today. Also, according to the Business Week article, 23% of the tax cuts would go to households making 2.8 million.

Let's split the difference, McCain's plan is too regressive and continues to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, Obama's closes up valuable tax loopholes and carry-backs for corporations. Which can be negotiated into a sane deal? I'd say Obama's, but that's just my opinion.

I have to agree with 'Mac though, McCain and Obama are both "buying" votes, McCain's got his eyes set on rich folks and CEOs and Obama's aiming towards the middle-class. Again, it depends on what you think will do the most good in the long run. I'd say that betting on the middle-class is a far better bet for a democracy than giving more bucks to a growing oligarchy.

[Desertrat]

"I'd say that betting on the middle-class is a far better bet for a democracy than giving more bucks to a growing oligarchy."

Agreed. But the middle class does not live by tax breaks alone.

mac, the cost of gasoline is tied directly to the decline in the buying power of the dollar. That's a mix of causes: Balance of payments deficit, federal deficit, and federal reserve policies. The last is probably at least have of the cause. That is, the more paper money you print, the less it's worth. M3 has been growing at a rate above 15% per year for quite a while. Thank Greenspan and Bernanke.

By the way, mac, when speaking of "the rich", I think of individuals. Your use of that term for corporations is thus confusing for me. And along that line, it's good that US corporations be rich. That increases their competitiveness with foreign corporations which have lesser tax burdens and other breaks as to operating overhead.

If Obama voted for the energy bill without knowing it was a subsidy for ADM, what does that say for his smarts? If he had no clue about the impact on grain prices--and thus meat, milk, eggs and bread--what does that say about his knowledge of our economic system? If he's a supporter of this "Energy Cap" bill, he's supporting the increase in the cost of living for everybody, rich and poor alike. The rich can afford it; the poor cannot.

By the bye, mac: You worked out your tax advantage under the Obama plan. Good. What percentage of your gross income was your tax under the present rates, and what percentage of your gross income did you save under the Obama plan?

'Rat

[hulugu]

...Agreed. But the middle class does not live by tax breaks alone.

Do corporations and the uber-wealthy?



mac, the cost of gasoline is tied directly to the decline in the buying power of the dollar. That's a mix of causes: Balance of payments deficit, federal deficit, and federal reserve policies. The last is probably at least have of the cause. That is, the more paper money you print, the less it's worth. M3 has been growing at a rate above 15% per year for quite a while. Thank Greenspan and Bernanke.

This is a good point. Although it's important to recognize how the housing bubble contributes.

...If Obama voted for the energy bill without knowing it was a subsidy for ADM, what does that say for his smarts? If he had no clue about the impact on grain prices--and thus meat, milk, eggs and bread--what does that say about his knowledge of our economic system? If he's a supporter of this "Energy Cap" bill, he's supporting the increase in the cost of living for everybody, rich and poor alike. The rich can afford it; the poor cannot.
...

There's some serious debate about how that particular system would affect the economy and food prices. The system will create a multi-trillion dollar boon for the US government, money that can redirected towards any number of things, including more investments in green technologies. Didn't you post in another thread data suggesting that the current usage of oil was outstripping demand? If that still holds true, then oil prices won't go down until demand does. A cap system will help that, thus the system might offset it's very cost.

Not only that, but it's clear that we need to do something about carbon emissions and this is a 'market-based' solution. So far, the only serious contention comes from the American Enterprise Institute, a group who's always on the wrong side of these issues.

If you have better information, I'd like to hear it.

[mactastic]

By the way, mac, when speaking of "the rich", I think of individuals. Your use of that term for corporations is thus confusing for me. And along that line, it's good that US corporations be rich. That increases their competitiveness with foreign corporations which have lesser tax burdens and other breaks as to operating overhead.
Get rid of corporate person-hood, and we'll talk about the dividing line...

By the bye, mac: You worked out your tax advantage under the Obama plan. Good. What percentage of your gross income was your tax under the present rates, and what percentage of your gross income did you save under the Obama plan?
Sorry, personal financial information isn't something I'm comfortable putting out there on the 'tubes. Suffice it to say that I will pay less tax under the Obama plan, and I plan on voting based, in part, on my own economic interests.

[ErikCLDR]

I'm sorry but I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth.

Thats all I can say.

[hulugu]

I'm sorry but I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth.

Thats all I can say.

I'm sorry, but can you define what this means in relationship to current taxation and government funding.

[solvs]

Nobody seems interested in discussing Obama vs. McCain's tax plan.
What a weird way to find out I'm on mac's ignore list. :p Seriously though, I've posted some links in other threads. I can again if need be. Most of the time, the consensus is pretty clear. While Obama's plans aren't great, especially since he's talking about more tax cuts we can't really afford (which I suspect is to prevent the "tax and spend liberal" label that he's being hit with anyway), they are better than McCain's. Which no matter how many times he flipflops on them, are unclear at best. He talks about cutting spending, but if one is to look at the details, he can cut about $18 million. Which leave us conservatively at about 3 trillion more on the deficit hulugu. Some estimates have been far worse. Rarely do I see one that's better, usually lacking any evidence and/or from a right leaning site. Although even some of them don't like him, since he's about as conservative with our money as Bush has been. Worse actually in some cases.

For the record, my taxes look like they might go up under Obama, even under his current plans, but for some reason that isn't such a big deal for me as it is for some, even those who's taxes probably won't be going up.

My taxes will be going down in an Obama administration, based on what I've seen. They will, at best, stay where they are with a McCain administration. From that perspective, the choice is clear.
Well sure, if you want to be selfish about it. ;)

you increase the prices of all products which people buy.
But as pointed out, prices are already going up.

My seat of the pants notion from comparison is that his ideas are less harmful to the economy as a whole. Obama's, overall, are harmful.
Once again, repeating this without backing it up. Your pants are wrong. McCain's plans will barely cut anything and add money to the deficit. There's a reason people are comparing it to Bush's plans, and we've seen where those go. Obama's aren't great, but harmful? How? To who?

What Is McCain's Economic Agenda? (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=what_is_mccains_economic_agenda)
Letter: Checking facts on McCain's economic plan (http://www.dglobe.com/articles/index.cfm?id=12325&section=Opinion)
Is The Election Over, Economically Speaking? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-green/7-days-is-the-election-ov_b_107244.html)
Three Questions for McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/business/18leonhardt.html?ref=politics)

Do I even need to get into the "Enron Loophole" (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00263.htm), which his top aids were involved with?

I'm sorry but I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth.

Thats all I can say.
What does that even mean?

[hulugu]

What does that even mean?

It's a shibboleth. I don't apparently speak the language so I'm as lost as you. I'd wager that some who use the term don't really know either, but I'm hoping Erik will provide some insight.

[Badandy]

It's a shibboleth. I don't apparently speak the language so I'm as lost as you. I'd wager that some who use the term don't really know either, but I'm hoping Erik will provide some insight.

I use the same statement. It means that I don't support taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don't just because that inequity exists.

[hulugu]

I use the same statement. It means that I don't support taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don't just because that inequity exists.

Can you explain this further? Wouldn't any federal tax system that included some form of grant or welfare fall under this category? Student loans? School lunches? The GI Bill?

Is it the transfer of wealth because of inequality that bothers you or just the transfer of wealth at all? Is it intent or effect?

Please explain further, this term still seems like shibboleth, I'm supposed to understand what it means because you've defined it, but I'd like to see how this doesn't question nearly everything we currently do with government.

[solvs]

I use the same statement. It means that I don't support taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don't just because that inequity exists.
So who pays for the disabled, or are they all on their own?

[Gelfin]

So who pays for the disabled, or are they all on their own?

If I may make a modest proposal, one imagines all that lazy sitting around in wheelchairs all day should make them quite tender and juicy.

[hulugu]

If I may make a modest proposal, one imagines all that lazy sitting around in wheelchairs all day should make them quite tender and juicy.

Like veal. Tasty.

[Badandy]

hulugu:

It needn't be taken to its absolutes. For example, I am against welfare for people who are able to work. Handouts, in my opinion, are a temporary measure that defeats its own purpose. Some become reliant on it and take advantage of welfare funds instead of propping themselves up. If you look at the welfare legislation Blair signed (I believe it was Blair) where it was something like a welfare to work where you needed to look for a job while receiving, I would be in favor of that.

Transfer of wealth, in intent, bothers me. If I am able to make a million dollars per year, I don't want the government telling me I have to give a portion of it to someone who is poor just because they are poor. It absolves personal responsibility, however cold hearted that sounds. Sure, there are good causes to donate to, and that's why charity is important, but I don't like the idea of having to give my money to someone who doesn't have my kind of money because they just haven't made it yet.

[solvs]

We already have welfare to work. I don't know how much you know about welfare, and I won't say there aren't those who take advantage of the system, but it's far less than you'd think. Welfare is such a small cost, so difficult to get, even in small amounts, and it certainly isn't unlimited. Even if you really are disabled. I used to work for the Seattle Housing Authority, public housing, and when we had our budgets cut, it was harder to afford to weed out and find those who abused the system. Also, people had to pay, even if it was reduced housing prices, it's not like anyone got in for free. Most of the welfare we have is for medical cost, and there are even some who use it because it's cheaper to be on it and get free childcare than to work and have to pay for it. There are lots of fixes we could make to the system, but it's hardly as bad as people think with welfare queens who have a billion children or whatever the stereotype is. Again, there are those who abuse the system, but corporate welfare is so much worse, and I can't help wondering why we don't talk more about that.

Not everyone is as smart or lucky as I am, and I've certainly had some bad times myself, so I guess when I'm paying to help some of the people I've met (most of them older and/or sickly/disabled) I just don't see why that's a big deal, especially considering all the other money wasted elsewhere.

[hulugu]

hulugu:

It needn't be taken to its absolutes. For example, I am against welfare for people who are able to work. Handouts, in my opinion, are a temporary measure that defeats its own purpose. Some become reliant on it and take advantage of welfare funds instead of propping themselves up. If you look at the welfare legislation Blair signed (I believe it was Blair) where it was something like a welfare to work where you needed to look for a job while receiving, I would be in favor of that.

Transfer of wealth, in intent, bothers me. If I am able to make a million dollars per year, I don't want the government telling me I have to give a portion of it to someone who is poor just because they are poor. It absolves personal responsibility, however cold hearted that sounds. Sure, there are good causes to donate to, and that's why charity is important, but I don't like the idea of having to give my money to someone who doesn't have my kind of money because they just haven't made it yet.

But wouldn't charitable giving have the same problem in your system, you would be absolving personal responsibility. The effect seems the same.
I notice you dodged my question about other kinds of government programs, including for instance the GI Bill, which gives a certain amount of money to someone to pay for college. Isn't this a transfer of your wealth through taxes to former soldiers and thereby to public universities? What about school lunches where we are converting your money into milk and cereal for poor kids?
What about medicaid? Or, a dozen other programs?

I understand what you're saying, but to call taxes wealth redistribution ignores, or at least requires a narrowing, of the scope of current federal programs. Since we live in a large society, we each pay taxes and sometimes those funds will be given to someone else either down the street or across the country. Calling this wealth redistribution tries to make taxes seem like some kind of vague robbery, rather than a societal function we have deemed necessary through our legislators.
You said that intent mattered, if the intent is simply to provide a societal safety net, then I don't see how this is a problem. While there may be some noise about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, the reality of welfare (especially after the 'Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 [had to look that up]) and other similar programs is not to steal from the rich, but to ensure that all sectors of our society are able to engage in opportunities this country provides. Making sure people have a roof, food, the medication they need to survive, and maybe a chance to make something of themselves call only be called 'wealth redistribution' when there's a point to be made. The reality is simply different, IMHO.

[mactastic]

I use the same statement. It means that I don't support taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don't just because that inequity exists.
But do you support taking money from those who don't have it, and giving it to those that do? Because my taxes (taken from me at the point of a gun no less :rolleyes:) are currently going to help pad the wallets of energy executives, mercenaries, construction companies, ethanol producers, mining interests, timber interests, etc. That doesn't sound like taking from those who have it and giving it to those who don't, as you describe it.

To describe taxes as simply wealth re-distribution is naive and reactionary.

If what you are looking for is an equitable pay-versus-use of taxes, you're going to need a vastly more complicated tax system. What if I don't drive very much? Why, then, should I be forced to subsidize those who do? What if I don't visit National Parks ever? Why should I be forced to subsidize those who do? What if I don't see the economic benefits of educating veterans? Why should I be forced to transfer my wealth to them? They made a choice to serve, I didn't.

You can see where this selfish logic leads... Or maybe not, as we've been over this a number of times.

[solvs]

I'm wondering where some of you are getting your ideas about Obama's plans:

Who misrepresented Obama's tax plan? Anyone? Anyone? Ben Stein (http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006)

But hey, who needs facts when you have rhetoric...

[Cleverboy]

I'm wondering where some of you are getting your ideas about Obama's plans:

Who misrepresented Obama's tax plan? Anyone? Anyone? Ben Stein (http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006)

But hey, who needs facts when you have rhetoric...
The engine has started and the economy is in its sites. Betwix Obama and McCain, who's pants will be on fire? It's sounding like McCain's trousers are quite warm.

They're Lying
JARED BERNSTEIN
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/theyre-lying_b_111291.html

When it comes to taxes, Obama has drawn a firm line in the sand at $250,000. He cuts taxes for the vast majority of families -- more than 95% -- and raises taxes only on those with incomes above $250,000. Whether its income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains, or stock dividends, his plan does not raise taxes on anyone below $250,000. He articulated this point today: "...if you're a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes -- not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Yet, from McCain's speech today: "If you believe you should pay more taxes, I am the wrong candidate for you. Senator Obama is your man. The choice in this election is stark and simple. Senator Obama will raise your taxes."

His top advisor, Doug Holtz-Eakin released a memo implying Obama would raise taxes on low-income families, those "making as little as $32,000 a year," a claim based on Obama's support for the Senate Democratic Budget resolution which contained no individual tax increases actually cut taxes for middle-class families.

McCain's "Jobs First" economic plan says: "If you are one of the 23 million small business owners in America who files as an individual rate payer, Senator Obama is going to raise your tax rates." But 99% of individuals with small business income make less than $250,000, so they won't see their taxes go up at all. In fact, Senator Obama has proposed a new 0% capital gains rate for small business and start ups -- it's McCain that would continue to tax small business capital gains at 15%. Oy.

~ CB

[Motley]

If you can't trust Carly Fiorina, who can you trust? Fiorina's Fuzzy Math (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/fiorinas_fuzzy_math.html)

“In the Bush tax cuts, if they are repealed, 23 million small businesses will have their taxes raised. Why? Because 23 million small businesses file their income tax as individuals. And so, when Barack Obama blithely says, only the wealthiest are going to be taxed, he is ignoring the fact that 23 million small businesses file as individuals and those small businesses are the only growing sector of the economy right now and small businesses produce 60%, actually it’s more like 70, 70% of the new jobs in this country.”


Okay, let’s assume there are now 23 million small businesses in the U.S. today (the latest stats I could find were 21.5 million "schedule C" class businesses in 2005). There’s no way that all 23 million of those are netting more than $250,000. In fact, 94.5% of all “flow-through” entities (self-employed folks, which generally tend to be small businesses, though Tiger Woods also falls into this category) had receipts under $100,000 in 2007.

Fiorina was building on a Bush arguement from 2004. Bush loved to cite on the stump the plight of the 4.1 million “subchapter S” companies – another catagory of small businesses that have less than 100 shareholders and pay individual income taxes. As my former Bloomberg colleague Ryan Donmoyer -- the best tax reporter in town -- pointed out, the argument was a bit ridiculous because less than 5% of small businesses who file under sub-chapter S made more than $200,000, Kerry’s threshold in 2004. Putting aside the dubiousness of relying on a stale Bush arguement for his tax cuts, even with the sub-chapter S filers added in the total number of small businesses effected by a tax hike on those who net more than $250,000 a year remains a few hundred thousand – no where near the 23 million Fiorina claimed

[mactastic]

I can understand why McCain would be complaining. His family, like any average American family, has 7 or 8 homes, private jets at their disposal, interest-free credit cards, and an income well above $500K annually. His taxes will surely rise under the Obama plan.

But what will it do for the TRULY rich?

[solvs]

Considering McCain's camp basically said the recession is all in our heads, and that we've become a nation of whiners, and worse they're standing by the comments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/mccain-campaign-initially_n_111929.html), do we really want more of this?


Ok, now they are backtracking (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/10/mccain-campaign-originally-stood-by-gramms-comments/).

Here's more on that, and some other things (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/10/top-mccain-econ-adviser-we-have-sort-of-become-a-nation-of-whiners/).

[mactastic]

So when Wesley Clark speaks, he speaks for himself and Obama, right? But when Phil Graham speaks, he only speaks for himself, and not for McCain?

Nice try McCain. But the hypocrisy -- or should we say the flip-flopping -- is apparent for all to see.

[SactoGuy18]

In my personal opinion, if Senator Obama wants to be really popular he should adopt the FairTax idea, given the increasingly ridiculous costs of compliance with our current tax laws (now estimated at over US$270 billion per year and increasing fast! :eek: ).

If the computations for FairTax are correct, it would result in a HUGE incentive for jobs to come back to the USA, and no President wants to miss out on that! :D

[solvs]

Some links on McCain, especially his claims that his plans are popular among economists:

McCain’s economists reject ‘two big chunks’ of his economic proposal (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/07/mccain-economists-big-chunks/)
McCain's List Of 300 Economists Filled With Skeptics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/11/mccains-list-of-300-econo_n_112147.html)
In theory, economists support McCain (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11618.html)
Jim Cramer on McCain’s “lack of any knowledge whatsoever about economics” (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/11/jim-cramer-on-mccains-lack-of-any-knowledge-whatsoever-about-economics/)

Apparently, it really isn't.

And the reality of the McCain campaign’s small-business myth (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/11/the-mccain-campaigns-small-business-myth/#more-30879).

[solvs]

Old thread, I know, but I didn't feel like doing this in the other Obama v. McCain thread(s):

Despite CNN Distortion, Americans Prefer Obama Tax Plan (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/27/despite-cnn-distortion-americans-prefer-obama-tax-plan/)

As shown by going here:

Barack Obama will cut taxes for over 95% of American families. (http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/)

Enter in your info, and see if you'll benefit under Obama (hint, you probably will).